LDPC Codes Achieve List Decoding Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that Gallager's ensemble of Low-Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes achieves list-decoding capacity with high probability. These are the first graph-based codes shown to have this property. This result opens up a potential avenue towards truly linear-time list-decodable codes that achieve list-decoding capacity. Our result on list decoding follows from a much more general result: any local property satisfied with high probability by a random linear code is also satisfied with high probability by a random LDPC code from Gallager's distribution. Local properties are properties characterized by the exclusion of small sets of codewords, and include list-decoding, list-recovery and average-radius list-decoding. In order to prove our results on LDPC codes, we establish sharp thresholds for when local properties are satisfied by a random linear code. More precisely, we show that for any local property P, there is some R* so that random linear codes of rate slightly less than R* satisfy P with high probability, while random linear codes of rate slightly more than R* with high probability do not. We also give a characterization of the threshold rate R*. This is an extended abstract. The full version is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06430
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".